Intelligent Design is not creationism

[I am...]

Quote from Jampilier:

To be in the world, not of the world.

The world of conflict, fear, guilt and unworthiness and the world of the Kingdom lie side by side in your mind. The eye of the needle that one must pass through is the re-cultivation of the innocence of a child. It is for this reason that I often taught:

"Become again as a little child to enter the Kingdom."

Stop for a moment and truly become aware of where you are. Rest assured, whatever the mind may try to say, if you did not wholly want to be right where you are, you would not be there. If you are in a body in the field of space and time, rest assured, you desired it, you chose it, and it is here.

You have a saying in your world, "It is what it is." That is the beginning of wisdom. Begin here. You will discover that what is, is what you have chosen to make of it.

As Bill Clinton once said, "It depends on what the meaning of is...is."

There is no need to judge it, no need to ask it to be different. Just truly be aware of what is. If you are feeling the body sitting in a chair, allow this thought to come into the mind:

"I have literally created this experience. Something within me is so grand, so powerful, so vast, so beyond anything that scientists have ever come up with, that I have literally crystallized into the field of experience an awareness of being a body in space and time! It has come forth from the field of my consciousness, the gift to me of God, who asks only that I learn to create as God creates. "

Can you begin to bring awareness to exactly what is, from a place of innocence and non-judgment?

I have said many times that the Father looks upon you and says:

"This is my only creation and it is very good."

For the Father marvels at what you are, knowing perfectly well that what you are emerged from Her holy mind.

Likewise look upon your creations and marvel. How is it that you could abide in this time frame on this planet? How could it be that you can place yourself behind the wheel of an automobile and actually get it from point A to point B? That is a mystery and a marvel - even for Ricky Bobby - and no one knows how it is done! Yet is is done.

The reason it is done is that all power has been given unto you and what you decree is. A man or woman shall decree a thing and it shall be so. You have decreed this moment. Own it! For by owning it, right now, you can begin to sense the incredible and awesome power that flows through you in each moment. It is the power to create!

Jesus

 

[2cents]

of course it is!... and eerrrhhh... re dark matter and stuff... any visions yet? i gotta create dinner right now... take your time jeez mate... don't blow up on me ok

 

[I am...]

Quote from Jampilier:

You make several interesting points, but the feedback loop of causality you attribute to the self asks too much of any frail human I have ever come across.

Think of how much creative power must go into the making of a "frail human". That same power can be used to continue to "be" frail, or to choose fearlessness and transformation. Begin by seeing "frail human" as neutral and innocent.

Jesus

 

[2cents]

Quote from 2cents:

of course it is!... and eerrrhhh... re dark matter and stuff... any visions yet? i gotta create dinner right now... take your time jeez mate... don't blow up on me ok

mmmhhh... pretty quiet innit... hope jeez's not choking on dark matter

did u guys know that u can order toothpaste from amazon.com btw?? not that we need any of that of course... i know how to create toothpaste now! pooofff!

 

[Teleologist]

Randomness as Darwinians use it is a statistical term. It says nothing about individual events. I’m sure you would agree that it is an individual event that creates advantage. So how do Darwinians claim that an individual event is non-intentional? Do they have some scheme to determine that there is no intentionality within the events that generate a particular event that creates an advantage? Let’s deal with that and please don’t switch to some theological argument.

It seems to me that if one claims an individual event is non-intentional they must resort to some concept of non-intentional detection. Can you cite some criterion for that?

 

[Teleologist]

As far as physics informs us, everything in the non-quantum universe is deterministic which by defintion means that randomness is an illusion caused by incomplete information of the chain of causal events. And even in quantum mechanics it’s arguable whether anything is actually unpredictable or whether the unpredictability is because we don’t have a complete theory (quantum gravity is MIA). The default position should be that randomness is an illusion since all the evidence points that way right now.

 

[ZZZzzzzzzz]

To Darwin types, random means "There is no pattern" rather than "I can't find or see a pattern."

One is an assumptive that if a pattern did exist, that is must be seen by current technology, so since we don't see it, it must not exist. As if to say, "we are so advanced right now, science is so complete, we can assert that there is no pattern."

The history of science has been one of revision, as knowledge deepens and technology discovers new methods of inquiry, theories are revised or scrapped.

One would think such history would make the "scientists" humble, and very reticent to claim that they now "know" or have a complete science on which to build belief systems that would withstand future discovery.

That is not what we see though. We see the exact opposite. We see dogmatism of scientific belief, simply because it was derived through a so called scientific process.

The intellectuals fancy themselves superior beings, even though they know in the corner of their mind that their science is incomplete and fraught with assumptions.

Any concept of random begins with a fist concept of order, pattern, and cause. We start with intelligence to work our way out of ignorance, not ignorance as the platform of truth.

Ignorance of order, pattern, and cause do not produce or discover actual randomness, they simple produce a projection of ignorance onto nature's ways.

Amazing that such a projection of ignorance is done with such great hubris...

Quote from Teleologist:

Randomness as Darwinians use it is a statistical term. It says nothing about individual events. I’m sure you would agree that it is an individual event that creates advantage. So how do Darwinians claim that an individual event is non-intentional? Do they have some scheme to determine that there is no intentionality within the events that generate a particular event that creates an advantage? Let’s deal with that and please don’t switch to some theological argument.

It seems to me that if one claims an individual event is non-intentional they must resort to some concept of non-intentional detection. Can you cite some criterion for that?

 

[2cents]

Quote from Teleologist:

Randomness as Darwinians use it is a statistical term. It says nothing about individual events. I’m sure you would agree that it is an individual event that creates advantage. So how do Darwinians claim that an individual event is non-intentional? Do they have some scheme to determine that there is no intentionality within the events that generate a particular event that creates an advantage? Let’s deal with that and please don’t switch to some theological argument.

It seems to me that if one claims an individual event is non-intentional they must resort to some concept of non-intentional detection. Can you cite some criterion for that?

An individual event? That's far from clear. I am no expert at all but i have followed a bit... there is considerable effort made by the geneticians / biologists to isolate relevant samples & control groups, observe / compute mutation rates, identify the type of mutations, typically of mitochondrial DNA, that seem to perdure etc... as you must know the genome has only recently been decoded... we are really only at the beginning of this phase of research... but going back to your question, it is more likely to be much more than a single event thats needed to create an advantage... more likely a set of mutations that in any order would procure an advantage in a given environment... shld the environment change, the advantage may disappear altogether along with the "mutant" population, due to different groups of predators, risks etc... there is the very recent example of the lizards in this thread but i'll provide a few more links of interest tomorrow (past midnight here in tokyo)

 

[Teleologist]

Environmental changes are purely random, accidental, happenstantial. So if a random mutation is adaptive, it is so only because of an accidental, purely random change in the environment.

What this means, if it isn't already crystal clear to everyone, is that Darwinian theory says that a random accident in the organism's genome, is linked together with the random, accidental changes of the external environment, and sometimes, luckily, by pure coincidence, there is a positive correspondence between the two accidental phenomena that gives the organism better adaptivity than its unmodified brothers and cousins and aunts.

Randomness + randomness = randomness.
And randomness is not scientifically acceptable as a causal explanation for origins. It amounts to nothing more scientific than "spontaneous generation", or, "it just -happens-, that's all."

The mechanism of Darwinian evolution is accidental variation plus coincidental selection. Accident and coincidence are not testable. For something to be testable it must exhibit regularity, repeatability, predictability. The Darwinian mechanism exhibits none of these features, hence it's untestable.

 

[john dough]

Quote from Teleologist:

Randomness + randomness = randomness.
And randomness is not scientifically acceptable as a causal explanation for origins. It amounts to nothing more scientific than "spontaneous generation", or, "it just -happens-, that's all."

The mechanism of Darwinian evolution is accidental variation plus coincidental selection. Accident and coincidence are not testable. For something to be testable it must exhibit regularity, repeatability, predictability. The Darwinian mechanism exhibits none of these features, hence it's untestable.

The above statement is utterly false. Randomness is testable within limits. If a series of events continues unpredictably, such that its distribution curve cannot be estimated, then the events are random.

Ultimately there might still be a pattern, just as their may be a pattern to the decimal series produced when calculating PI.

The only question is: when is the scientific method satisfied? And the answer is: when the hypothesis is confirmed for all practical purposes.

The singular and continuing dilemma posed by this thread is that the design advocate wants a definitive answer which is impossible to obtain, before the hypothesis of evolution is confirmed -- where as the evolution advocate merely requires reasonable certainty within limits.

One position is reasonable -- the other is not. Design is thus an unreasonable conclusion -- and it will continue to be treated as such, until someone demonstrates a scientific experiment confirming design, that is reasonably measurable within limits.